DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed December 29th, 2025.
In regards to the title, the argument is persuasive and the Examiner withdraws the objection to the Specification.
In regards to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based on Kuhn, the argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the referenced section is Kuhn does not disclose or suggest querying a system under test. However, the Examiner disagrees. In the section 9 titled “Model-Based Test Oracles” on page 53 (note that the page number refers to the page within the attached pdf, and not to the page number printed on the pdf), Kuhn recites “Also needed is a formal or semi-formal specification of the system or subsystem under test (SUT). This can be in the form of a formal logic specification, but state transition tables, decision tables, pseudo-code, or structural natural language can also be used, as long as the rules are unambiguous. The specification will be converted to SMV code, which provides a precise, machine-processable set of rules that can be used to generate tests.” Thus, in this passage, the SUT is queried. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that the SUT would need to be queried if it is needed during the process. Furthermore, the system configuration of the SUT is retrieved. This system configuration is used to determine the counterexamples for the testing (page 59). During the testing process specific values are assigned (page 58).
In the Specification of the Application in [0019] describes modifying the CTD model includes the action of “modifying one or more of the attribute values of the CTD model based on the received configuration information. In some examples of the method, modifying one or more of the attribute values of the CTD model may include changing abstract values in the CTD model to concrete values.” This is done by the ACTS during the testing process as described in the previous office action, but also in page 51 by having its parameters stored in the “in.txt” file.
The claim limitation of claim 1 has been further amended in order to teach “the method… wherein the system configuration information includes information regarding a configuration regarding a configuration of the SUT….wherein the CTD model is modified based on the configuration of the SUT,” but as stated earlier, the formal or semi-formal specification of the SUT is retrieved in page 53, third paragraph. It is then used to create counterexamples (page 53 first paragraph), and modifies the model during the testing process by applying the test input values to the model (page 57). Thus, the Kuhn citation teaches this claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kuhn et al (Information Security: Practical Combinatorial Testing, NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, NIST Special Publication 800-142, October 2010) from henceforth known as Kuhn.
Per claim 1, Kuhn teaches
A method for dynamic Combinatorial Test Design (CTD) modeling, the method comprising:
querying, by a processing device, a system under test (SUT) to be tested based on a CTD model, wherein the system configuration information includes information regarding a configuration regarding a configuration of the SUT; and (page 53, Section 9 Model-based Test Oracles, third paragraph, the formal or semi-formal specification of the SUT is retrieved. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that during the process of this retrieval, the SUT itself is being identified/queried).
receiving, by the processing device, based on the querying, system configuration information including one or more system value sets each corresponding to an attribute of the CTD model;
(page 53, Section 9 Model-based Test oracles, third paragraph, the formal or semi-formal specification of the SUT is received. As stated in page 53, last paragraph, this information will be incorporated into the model’s specification so it is the Examiner’s interpretation that the specification corresponds to the attribute of the model. The “formal or semi-formal specification” recited in the prior art teaches the “system value sets”)
modifying, by the processing device, the CTD model based on the received configuration information, wherein the CTD model is modified based on the configuration of the SUT.
(page 58-59, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, assigning values from the covering array to parameters used in the model)
Per claim 2, Kuhn teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the CTD model models inputs to the SUT as a plurality of attributes, and wherein each attribute includes a set of attribute values.
(page 57, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, teaches the inputs as plurality of attributes with a set of attribute values)
Per claim 3, Kuhn teaches
The method of claim 2, and further comprising: identifying, by the processing device, one or more of the attributes of the CTD model that correspond to the system value sets.
(page 58-59, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, assigning values from the covering array to parameters used in the model; in order to do so, the Examiner’s interpretation is that the identification must be conducted beforehand)
Per claim 4, Kuhn teaches
The method of claim 2, wherein modifying, by the processing device, the CTD model, includes modifying one or more of the attribute values of the CTD model based on the received system configuration information.
(page 58-59, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, assigning values from the covering array to parameters used in the model)
Per claim 5, Kuhn teaches
The method of claim 4, wherein modifying one or more of the attribute values of the CTD model includes changing abstract values in the CTD model to concrete values.
(page 58-59, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, assigning values from the covering array to parameters used in the model)
Per claim 6, Kuhn teaches
The method of claim 2, wherein modifying, by the processing device, the CTD model, includes removing attribute values to scale down the CTD model.
(page 57, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, third paragraph, the “-Ddoi=2” argument sets the degree of interaction for the covering array for the computation. This can be scaled up or down depending on the usage. This is useful, for instance, for fault localization (section 10))
Per claim 7, Kuhn teaches
The method of claim 2, wherein modifying, by the processing device, the CTD model, includes adding attribute values to scale up the CTD model.
(page 57, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, third paragraph, the “-Ddoi=2” argument sets the degree of interaction for the covering array for the computation. This can be scaled up or down depending on the usage. This is useful, for instance, for fault localization (section 10))
Per claim 9, Kuhn teaches
The method of claim 1, and further comprising: generating a set of test vectors based on the modified CTD model, wherein the set of test vectors provides a desired amount of coverage of a test space that includes all possible combinations of attributes values of the modified CTD model;
(page 57-58, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, set of test configurations that are defined as a set of values for the input parameters are created using the ACTS tool)
generating, for the set of test vectors, a corresponding set of test cases;
(page 59, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, tests are generated from the set of test configurations)
and executing the set of test cases to obtain execution results.
(page 59, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, using the expected results for each test supplied from the model checker, the execution results are outputted for each test)
Per claim 10, Kuhn teaches
An apparatus for dynamic Combinatorial Test Design (CTD) modeling, the apparatus comprising:
a processing device; and memory operatively coupled to the processing device, wherein the memory stores computer program instructions
(page 57, section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, first paragraph, describes the use of ACTS as a standalone command line tool. In order to implement ACTS as such, it is the Examiner’s interpretation that there exists a processing device with a memory that stores this tool) that, when executed, cause the processing device to:
query a system under test (SUT) to be tested based on a CTD model;
(page 53, Section 9 Model-based Test Oracles, third paragraph, the formal or semi-formal specification of the SUT is retrieved. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that during the process of this retrieval, the SUT itself is being identified/queried).
receive, based on the query, system configuration information including one or more system value sets each corresponding to an attribute of the CTD model, wherein the system configuration information includes information regarding a configuration regarding a configuration of the SUT; and (page 53, Section 9 Model-based Test oracles, third paragraph, the formal or semi-formal specification of the SUT is received. As stated in page 53, last paragraph, this information will be incorporated into the model’s specification so it is the Examiner’s interpretation that the specification corresponds to the attribute of the model. The “formal or semi-formal specification” recited in the prior art teaches the “system value sets”)
modify the CTD model based on the received system configuration information.
(page 58-59, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, assigning values from the covering array to parameters used in the model)
Per claim 15, Kuhn teaches
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein modifying the CTD model includes removing attribute values to scale down the CTD model or adding attribute values to scale up the CTD model.
(page 57, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, third paragraph, the “-Ddoi=2” argument sets the degree of interaction for the covering array for the computation. This can be scaled up or down depending on the usage. This is useful, for instance, for fault localization (section 10))
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17 recites similar claim limitation as claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 respectively, and thus are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 respectively.
Per claim 18, Kuhn teaches
A computer program product for dynamic Combinatorial Test Design (CTD) modeling, comprising a computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium comprises computer program instructions (page 57, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, first paragraph, describes the use of ACTS as a standalone command line tool. The Examiner’s interpretation that in order for the ACTS tool to run, the system must comprise of a computer readable storage medium for it to reside) that, when executed:
query a system under test (SUT) to be tested based on a CTD model;
(page 53, Section 9 Model-based Test Oracles, third paragraph, the formal or semi-formal specification of the SUT is retrieved. It is the Examiner’s interpretation that during the process of this retrieval, the SUT itself is being identified/queried).
receive, based on the query, system configuration information including one or more system value sets each corresponding to an attribute of the CTD model, wherein the system configuration information includes information regarding a configuration regarding a configuration of the SUT; and (page 53, Section 9 Model-based Test oracles, third paragraph, the formal or semi-formal specification of the SUT is received. As stated in page 53, last paragraph, this information will be incorporated into the model’s specification so it is the Examiner’s interpretation that the specification corresponds to the attribute of the model. The “formal or semi-formal specification” recited in the prior art teaches the “system value sets”)
modify the CTD model based on the received system configuration information.
(page 58-59, Section 9.2.2 Integrating Combinatorial Tests into the Model, assigning values from the covering array to parameters used in the model)
Claims 19 and 20 recites similar claim limitations as claims 2 and 4 respectively and thus are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2 and 4 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn in view of Budnik et al (US 20130185594 A1).
Per claim 8, Kuhn teaches
The method of claim 1
Kuhn fails to teach
further comprising:
receiving, by the processing device, updated system configuration information indicating a change in configuration of the SUT; and
modifying, by the processing device, the CTD model based on the updated configuration information.
However, Budnik teaches
further comprising:
receiving, by the processing device, updated system configuration information indicating a change in configuration of the SUT; and ([0016] the prior art notes the ability to automatically generate test environment configurations from a given model-based specification in order to evaluate the mechatronic SUT without re-coding test scripts as the configuration of the mechatronic SUT changes. Thus, this system is configured to receive an update to the SUT configuration)
modifying, by the processing device, the CTD model based on the updated configuration information. ([0017] automated test scripts are used in order to execute the testing, including the model-based testing).
It is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuhn and Budnik to teach receiving an update to the SUT and modifying the CTD model configuration accordingly because with the complexity of modern system design, it becomes “impossible” to identify and configure necessary testing for the system. Therefore, an automated test design process that would generate the updated test script as the SUT configuration changes become crucial to the verification and validation of a system (Budnik, [0035]).
Per claim 16, it recites similar claim limitation as claim 8 and thus is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYO LISA RUSIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.L.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114